And more things reach Wikipedia than OED reaches people. I wouldn't consider reaching Wikipedia to mean anything. — BlueBanana

I was being a bit tongue in cheek. Anyway, I have no problem with the word being included in OED. Does anyone claim prejudice on the part of the editors is keeping it out?

The point is, you are singling out antinatalism unduly. Antinatalism doesn't think your particular life is worthless T Clark. That is a distortion. Rather, it is saying that life is sufficiently bad/negative enough to not start a new life. — schopenhauer1

How could you know I am singling out anti-natalism unless you know the history of my posts?

I don't think so. You seem to single it out unduly as well, as the only time I ever see your little icon there is when this position arises. You can simply ignore it. Did I or any other antinatlists ever call you out on it? You seek these out not the other way around. There are plenty of philosophies which you can also disagree with and choose to not participate. — schopenhauer1

You are right. I don't get what you mean by "performing your own philosophy". Do you mean you are trying to philosophize? And if so, why not start some of your own threads on what you are interested in or perhaps participate in existing threads that interest you? — schopenhauer1

This isn't reasonable and it's not the way the forum works. You deserve to be treated with respect and civility, although I admit you won't always be, but if you put your ideas up here, it is reasonable people should give you their opinions, even strongly worded ones, if they disagree with them. It's clear, and I'm sure you are aware,anti-natalism raises a lot of hackles. You should thicken your skin a bit if you want to be a credible advocate.

I haven't checked your posts in general. Do you participate in discussions about other subjects? That might make people more likely to pay attention with an open mind when you come back to anti-natalism.

First, why not just let Roke speak? By continuing this, you are continuing the kind of postings that don't add anything to the conversation, just "You are this and you are that". Doesn't do much.

Also the ad hom to thicken my skin is not necessary to say being that I pretty readily defend my position almost every time I'm on here, so I think you are not considering that perhaps. Yes, I do participate in other discussions. But my point to Roke was that the only time I really see him is when he wants to respond to antinatalism, but usually more in a trolling way.. There are ways to engage that aren't trolling. I've had epic debates with Thorongil and apokrisis, ones that frustrated me even, but I wouldn't call most of it trolling. Sometimes there was some of that, but it was at a minimum and usually after we have both had lengthy substantive posts. That is not to say, right now one of them won't display troll-like behavior or at any point in the future, but I'm just saying one can engage in a style that is not just trying to provoke for the sake of provoking but actually has an argument that engages the topic. Being that I don't think there is real engagement with the topic, respect for the other debators, or anything of the sort, I suggested that he start his own threads on topics he does want to engage in rather than always trolling on a topic he doesn't even like to discuss.

What does "activism in antinatalism" look like in practice? Do you just not get laid? — Maw

I'd imagine a lot of it has things in common with activism about any other social issue. Although certainly I think there's something "more" to the antinatalist point than any other moral problem, since all moral problems would seem to depend on there being people who are born.

That being said from my own experiences it's that people who are concerned about "activism" about antinatalism are not actually very serious and/or decent in what they do and who they are. As soon as someone tries selling antinatalist windshield stickers, I'm out :vomit:

Also the ad hom to thicken my skin is not necessary to say being that I pretty readily defend my position almost every time I'm on here, so I think you are not considering that perhaps. — schopenhauer1

It's true. Anti-natalism raises my hackles. Something that bothers me even more is people using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly. I did not attack you personally. "Thicken your skin" just means "be less sensitive." Ad hominem doesn't mean saying something you don't like.

Yes, I do participate in other discussions. But my point to Roke was that the only time I really see him is when he wants to respond to antinatalism, but usually more in a trolling way.. There are ways to engage that aren't trolling. I've had epic debates with Thorongil and apokrisis, ones that frustrated me even, but I wouldn't call most of it trolling. Sometimes there was some of that, but it was at a minimum and usually after we have both had lengthy substantive posts. That is not to say, right now one of them won't display troll-like behavior or at any point in the future, but I'm just saying one can engage in a style that is not just trying to provoke for the sake of provoking but actually has an argument that engages the topic. Being that I don't think there is real engagement with the topic, respect for the other debators, or anything of the sort, I suggested that he start his own threads on topics he does want to engage in rather than always trolling on a topic he doesn't even like to discuss. — schopenhauer1

I think I misunderstood where you were coming from on this. Your response seems reasonable to me.

Antinatalism is already a word, so it doesn't really matter if it's in a dictionary or not. I'm an antiprocreationist, but I don't need that to be in a dictionary. *shrug*

Antinatalism is the same thing as saying you wish you'd never been born . It's also true that libido may be the result of needless, adolescent restless and unruly mental forces. Hormones in adolescence are a dreadful problem.

It's also true that libido may be the result of needless, adolescent restless and unruly mental forces. Hormones in adolescence are a dreadful problem. — Anthony

Needless? Reproduction is one of the primary criteria for being alive.

Needless? Reproduction is one of the primary criteria for being alive. — T Clark

Adolescent immaturity can be defined in the main by raging hormones. At the same time, reproduction is a part of the cyclic time I have in mind. I choose to not recognize it as an issue (Antinatalism). There are some irreducibles in the chain of being. So I'm just trying to state the contradictory paradoxes that relate to the complexity of the grievance of antinatalists. I'm thankful to have lived, even if it is possible I may have been a happy soul in the Otherworld before born.

Sexual obsession is a hangover from from a much more foolish age of adolescence. Hormones result in many bad judgments whether a child or and adult. You could say tempering hormones is a right of passage from childhood to adulthood. With humans, the body matures much faster than the mind, there are parallels between adolescent stupidity and inability to get over hormones (and the dominations of libido).

Needless? Reproduction is one of the primary criteria for being alive. — T Clark

Wait, what? My being alive depends on my ability to reproduce?

Wait, what? My being alive depends on my ability to reproduce? — Buxtebuddha

Not necessarily you in particular, but humanity as a group.

humanity as a group. — T Clark

Christ save us...

And on that note...